Should doubles players be paid more?

C

ChocoChipWaffle

Regular Member
I almost think badminton took the tennis' economic model blindly and hasn't adapted with the times, as it's evident that the modern badminton world revolves around both doubles and singles

In tennis, singles players get paid more than doubles players because the scene revolves around singles, with very little emphasis around doubles in comparison. And the very few times doubles is actually played on TV, you can immediately realize why - the rallies are extremely short, the gameplay is choppy, and it doesn't have that mass appeal that it needs to compete with singles (even though tennis singles is a bit on the dry side too IMO). Therefore tennis singles brings in much more revenue than tennis doubles, so singles players get paid more. Fine, that seems completely fair to me.

Badminton doubles in comparison is much more appealing than in tennis, and imo just as watchable as badminton singles. In the badminton scene, the doubles players are just as marketed and marketable as the singles players, and that's because badminton doubles is so entertaining to watch. What about the numbers though? Viewership on BWF indicates that badminton doubles might be even more popular than singles, and since doubles is the most commonly played format in the casual scene, there is much more attention gone into the professional doubles scene. This can be seen from companies marketing certain badminton rackets "specialized for doubles", and a lot of times becoming the most popular rackets of their era like the current AX88S/D. If you combine the professional and casual scenes, it's very arguable that doubles may be the key format for this sport, so why are doubles players getting paid less than half of the singles prize money?
 
Last edited:
Id start with each person in the winner of doubles earning 70% of singles money, but the cleanest way should be based on ratings and revenues earned for each event
 
ChocoChipWaffle said:
Id start with each person in the winner of doubles earning 70% of singles money, but the cleanest way should be based on ratings and revenues earned for each event
Click to expand...
both good points and i agree, but,
  1. 70% of singles money for the 3 doubles category winners would drastically dilute the prize pool for others.
  2. ratings are meaningless without a contract with a major broadcasting network partner, which bwf does not have. i mean the type of contract you see for major sports wherein bwf can charge the network $millions per year to broadcast, because the network knows it can sell comercial time to advertisers for $$$$$, because those advertisers know millions of people are watching.
  3. for online viewing bwf would have to experiment with pay-per-view for each category, and for live attendance at tournaments charge separate admission for one individual event or grouped events —singles only, dbls only, men only, women only. another way would be to charge advertisers per click for each event, which has yet to be proven as a viable stand alone model for live sports.
  4. the prize money amounts for each tournament are decided in advance of each 4 year cycle. for the 2022-2025 cycle the amounts will be decided by the end of 2021, so any revenue generated by the stars we watch today will not affect current or near term prize pools. i hope they round up at least the same amount from hsbc, li-ning, yonex, victor, etc. for the next cycle. it won't be easy.
  5. live attendance tournament revenue —gate, concessions, retail— goes to the host/organizer who have paid bwf a sanction fee to host it. the hosting fee is a % of the prize pool.
as you can see bwf's current revenue model is dysfunctional due to the disconnected way the sport is run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top